DOJ-OGR-00010112.jpg
448 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
448 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Berke, filed on March 22, 2022. The questioning focuses on what Berke knew about Juror No. 1, specifically concerning a potential connection to a suspended New York attorney and the juror's past involvement as a plaintiff in a personal injury case. Berke denies being told details about the alleged connection but recalls discussing the juror's prior lawsuit.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Berke | Witness |
The individual being cross-examined in the transcript.
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
A juror whose potential connection to a suspended attorney and past personal injury lawsuit is the subject of questio...
|
| Catherine Conrad |
A name used in a hypothetical question about a written report concerning a personal injury or private lawsuit.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the Brune firm | Law firm |
Mentioned in a hypothetical question as a source of a written report.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Court reporting agency |
The agency that transcribed the proceeding, listed at the bottom of the page.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in reference to a "suspended New York attorney".
|
Relationships (1)
The document contains questioning about a belief held by an attorney that a connection existed between Juror No. 1 and a suspended New York attorney.
Key Quotes (3)
"Did she tell you anything else that her firm had learned that gave rise to the belief by one of their attorneys that there was a connection between Juror No. 1 and the suspended New York attorney?"Source
— Questioner
(A question asking the witness, Berke, about information received concerning a juror's potential connections.)
DOJ-OGR-00010112.jpg
Quote #1
"The only other thing that I recall is that when talking about the note, we both noted that we believed that Juror 1 had said she had been a plaintiff in a personal injury case, which might explain the respondeat superior."Source
— Berke
(The witness's response, recalling a conversation about Juror No. 1's past as a plaintiff in a lawsuit.)
DOJ-OGR-00010112.jpg
Quote #2
"If you had learned from somebody at the Brune firm that they had a written report showing somebody named Catherine Conrad had a personal injury or had a private lawsuit, would that be a piece of information that you would want to have had at the time in order to do your own analysis?"Source
— Questioner
(A hypothetical question posed to the witness about the importance of receiving information about a juror's litigation history.)
DOJ-OGR-00010112.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document